Increasing the Proportion of Plant-Based Foods Available to Shift Social Consumption Norms and Food Choice among Non-Vegetarians
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented very interesting results of research on the impact of increased availability of plant/animal products on their selection by potential customers. The test procedure and the results are very detailed.
Below are my comments and suggestions:
Point 1: In the chapter "Introduction" please limit the information on your own research. This part of the article should focus on theoretical premises.
Point 2: Fig. 1a what is the point of placing 2 identical products e. g. Vegarian grilled burger 2x, vegetable burger 2x. In my opinion it would be more advantageous to include 4 different products of plant origin.
Similarly, Figure 1b - I think it would be more advantageous to include four equal products of animal origin.
Likewise, Figure 3 Please explain what was intended to repeat the same products?
Point 3: Lines 217-252 subsection "Procedure" is quite extensive. In my opinion, it would be more readable to present the various stages on the diagram.
Similarly Lines 448-508
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript by Raghoebar et. al. entitled “Increasing the relative availability of plant-based (versus-animal source) foods to shift social consumption norms and food choice among non-vegetarian” investigates impact of more plant based food analogues available/served in “supermarket” to food choice change in non-vegetarians (manipulation with number of vegetarian vs meat options of the same food). Research was carried out in two separated studies with different food in each study (burgers in study 1 and pasta sauce in study 2) with different study design (where study 2 had control group and study 1 not) with study 1 carried on as computer based and study one as interpersonal investigation.
Authors concluded among others that enlarged number of vegetarian analogues can shift consumption habits toward vegetarian choices in participants that are highly attached to meat. But stressed out that data are no/or marginally significant.
Although this topic is very interesting and has great potential in changing people food habits, what is important for general health (reducing read meat intake and enlarging plant food intake) this manuscript needs some changes. For the beginning manuscript is too extensive, lot of unnecessary details and some important things for understanding are put in supplement. It is better to make stronger connection between studies rather than describe it separately. Manuscript needs to be shortened!
Authors already stated their limitations but it is important one more to point out that these two food choices are not comparable. It is clear that because of the condition of study (especially study 2) it was not possible to use food option as for visualisation stimulation but something similar is needed if you want to compare these two studies and obtained results (because lot of people are eating tomato sauce but not lot of them are into soy and its products). Especially when these two options are not the heftiest options (you chose something that are at the marginal with fast food). How did you planned investigation when you get same etic approval for both studies?
Question is also to use and present soy as sustainable for environment when most of soy at the market is GMO
Also questionable was the choice of sauces – if you selected two tomato vegetable sauces than you need to choice two tomato-meat sauces because cream sauce is not comparable (it stood out with colour and it would be the choice for people that are not fan of tomatoes and vice versa).
When you stated greater availability of plant based foodS reader is getting impact that you are offering more choice that are plant based compare to meet ones not that here is only model and its analogues… so take into account and change title. The text in the building is unnecessary
About people including – in the fair if you include 315 from 82000 fair participants means that only motivated (for getting free food as you advertise it) take part. You have big difference in studies according to educational level and it is known that lover educated people are not so aware about their health and healthy diet and probably they will not take care about vegetarian choice or not, so that is also one of the limitations (not only sex)
Term “condition” in this manuscript is confusing, better to use something like “offer”; “option”
Line 33 - healthier
Line 66 – hereto??
Line 253/509 –removed planned
There are some more minor things to change but first general change of manuscript needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a well-written paper from two precisely planned studies.
Let me suggest three very small changes in the text. Without this, the paper can be accepted, but I think this could help readers.
- In lines 124-128 it is not easy to follow what do you proposed in cases you write “plant-based (animal source)” and “increase (decrease)”. Just like in lines 381-384. If you could just add “or” or “vs.” it would be more clear.
- It would be nice to use different sources than your former findings as sources to perceptions of descriptive and injunctive norms as well as perceptions of salience. See Table 1.
- In the second study, male respondents could not participate as you write the fair was organized for women. Was there any chance for men to get into the sample? In line 513 you write that male participants were “excluded”. Did you need to exclude any male respondents?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank You to accept some of the given suggestions to provide better clarity to the manuscript. Still, some things are much clearer when you explain it like in letter to reviewer than in the manuscript.
Because Your statement that these two studies are strongly connected to each other and there was no enough data for two separated papers I'll support publication of Your manuscript even though it is still quite extensive.
